Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Summary:First in a series examining connections between international and public law, discussing sanction implementation within the confines of domestic law"

"ABSTRAKSanksi Ekonomi Unilateral/sepihak, telah banyak menimbulkan perdebatan dalam hukum internasional. Sanksi ekonomi merupakan alat kebijakan luar negeri yang digunakan oleh negara atau organisasi internasional untuk mempengaruhi pemerintah atau kelompok pemerintahan untuk mengubah kebijakan mereka dengan membatasi perdagangan, investasi, atau kegiatan komersial lainnya.Tindakan tersebut tentunya berlawanan dengan era perdagangan saat ini yang bertujuan untuk membangun kerjasama ekonomi secara global. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisa legalitas serta efektifitas pengenaan sanksi ekonomi oleh Uni Eropa terhadap Federasi Rusia, serta meninjau keberadaan sanksi dalam peraturan hukum perdagangan internasional. Tindakan pemberian atau penjatuhan sanksi diketahui bahwa hanya merupakan kewenangan tunggal Dewan Keamanan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (PBB), dan hanya melalui otoriasinya suatu negara atau organisasi internasional dapat memberlakukan sanksi tersebut kepada negara lain. Dalam hukum perdagangan internasional ketentuan pemberian sanksi ekonomi memang dapat diperbolehkan tetapi dalam ketentuan yang juga mengacu kepada Piagam PBB atau sebagai tindakan balasan atas pelanggaran negara target terlebih dahulu.

---

ABSTRACT

Unilateral economic sanctions is already have caused many debates in international law. Economic sanctions are foreign policy tools used by countries or international organizations to influence other countries to change their policies by limiting trade, investment, or other commercial activities. Such actions are certainly controvert from the current trade era which is aims to build global economic cooperation among nations. The purpose of this study is to analyze the legality and effectiveness of imposing economic sanctions by the European Union on the Russian Federation, as well as reviewing the existence of sanctions in the rules of international trade law. The act of giving or imposing sanctions is known to be the sole authority of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, and only through its authorization can a country or international organization impose such sanctions on other countries. In international trade law, the provision of economic sanctions can indeed be permitted but under special circumstances that also refer to the UN Charter provisions or as a retaliation for the violation of the target country first."

"With the resurgence of Asian nations such as China, current West-centric international law is changing in the twenty-first century. There is a pressing need to address these changes within international legal studies and overcome potential conflicts between existing and emerging powers. This structural transformation also demands a change in understanding of existing ideas and institutions. This book explores a 'trans-civilizational' approach to international law, supplementing and modifying two other prevalent perspectives: international and transnational. By considering these three layered viewpoints, this book highlights the complex phenomena surrounding the history and development of international law. The author also considers how international law operates and functions within diverse forums such as diplomatic negotiation, international organizations, and domestic political processes. This book will appeal to international law scholars and students, as well as those interested in the rise of non-Western powers and its impact on the prevalent ideas and institutions of the world."

"ABSTRAKk Tindak pidana korupsi mengakibatkan kerugian keuangan negara dan perekonomian negara, lebih jauh menghambat proses pembangunan nasional dan merampas hak-hak sosial dan ekonomi masyarakat. Kerugian negara yang ditimbulkan oleh tindak pidana korupsi adalah kerugian negara yang secara nyata telah terjadi dan berpotensi akan terjadi. Pengadilan yang dapat menangani perkara korupsi adalah pengadilan umum (negeri) dan pengadilan tindak pidana korupsi yang dibentuk berdasarkan UU No.46 Tahun 2009. Namun Putusan masih dirasakan kurang mewujudkan keadilan, khususnya bagi masyarakat. Penjatuhan sanksi pidana masih tidak sesuai dengan kerugian negara yang telah atau akan ditimbulkan. Kerugian negara tidak hanya yang bersifat materil tetapi juga immateril. Untuk itulah diperlukan suatu penelitian yang berusaha mencari hal-hal apa saja yang perlu diperhatikan oleh hakim dalam memberikan putusan, apakah ada landasan teoritis yang mengharuskan hakim mempertimbangkan proporsionalitas antara besar kerugian negara dan sanksi yang diberikan, apakah kerugian negara merupakan faktor yang selalu menentukan besaran sanksi yang dijatuhkan dalam putusan tindak pidana korupsi. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif. Dari hasil penelitian didapatkan bahwa dalam putusannya hakim tidak memberikan pertimbangan yang jelas, hakim memutus perkara berdasarkan dakwaan yang diajukan Penuntut Umum, hakim membuktikan setiap unsur-unsur yang ada pada rumusan pasal-pasal yang ada pada dakwaan, hakim juga memberikan putusan berdasarkan hal-hal yang memberatkan dan meringankan. Tidak ada landasan teoritis yang mewajibkan hakim untuk menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap terpidana korupsi berdasarkan besaran kerugian negara. Kerugian negara tidak menjadi ukuran penentuan besaran sanksi yang akan dijatuhkan kepada terpidana korupsi. Sehingga terjadi kesenjangan besaran sanksi pidana yang dijatuhkan dengan besaran kerugian negara yang ditimbulkan. Diperlukan suatu acuan bagi hakim untuk menjatuhkan hukuman berdasarkan besaran kerugian negara yang telah ditimbulkan. Sehingga sanksi pidana yang dijatuhkan proporsional terhadap kerugian negara yang telah ditimbulkan.

---

ABSTRAK Corruption resulted in financial losses of state and national economy, further impede the process of national development and depriving the rights of social and economic communities. State losses caused by corruption is a country that is a real loss has occurred and will potentially occur. Court to handle cases of corruption are common courts ( state ) and the corruption court established by UU No. 46 of 2009. But the verdict is still lacking justice, especially for the community. Criminal sanctions is not in accordance with state losses that have been or will be incurred. State losses that are not only material but also immaterial. For that we need a research trying to find whatever things are need to be considered by the judge in rendering a verdict, is there a theoretical foundation that requires judges to consider the proportionality between the huge loss to the state and the sanction, whether the loss is a country that is always a factor determining the amount of sanctions imposed in the judgment of corruption. This research is normative. The result showed that in its decision the judge did not give a clear judgment, the judge decided the case based on charges filed Prosecutor, the judge prove any elements that exist in the formulation of the existing provisions on indictment, the judge also gave a decision based on things that are burdensome and ease. There is no theoretical foundation requires judges to impose penalties against convicted of corruption based on the amount of losses to the state. The loss of the country does not become a size determination of the amount of sanctions to be imposed on convicted of corruption. So there is a gap scale criminal sanctions imposed by the amount of loss caused state. Needed a reference for the judge to sentence based on the amount of losses that have been incurred. So the criminal sanctions imposed proportionate to losses that have been incurred."

"Sistem sanksi dalam pengawasan terhadap pelaksanaan jabatan notaris yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris dan perilaku notaris yang diatur dalam Kode Etik Notaris, didasarkan kepada jenis sanksi yang menjadi kewenangan pejabat yang berwenang menjatuhkan sanksi dan jenis sanksi berdasarkan jenis pelanggaran norma hukum yang dirumuskan dalam pasal-pasal Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris. Sanksi jabatan yang bersifat kumulatif tidak dikenal dalam Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris. dan eksekusi sanksi teguran tertulis dilakukan oleh Kepala Kantor Wilayah Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI sedangkan eksekus jenis sanksi pemberhentian sementara atau pemberhentian dengan tidak hormat dilakukan oleh Menteri. Ada tumpang tindih pengaturan jenis sanksi dan lembaga yang berwenang menjatuhkan sanksi terhadap pelanggaran Kode Etik Notaris yaitu Dewan Kehormatan Notaris yang berwenang menjatuhkan sanksi atas pelanggaran kode etik notaris yang bersifat internal (organisatoris) sedangkan Majelis Pengawas Notaris berwenang menjatuhkan sanksi jabatan terhadap pelanggaran Kode Etik Notaris.Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menjawab masalah jenis sanksi yang bersifat kumulatif dan eksekui sanksi yang bersfat condemnatoir? Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian normatif, melalui pengaturan normative tentang sistem sanksi yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris dan peraturan pelaksanaanya, ditemukan adanya tumpng tindih (overlapping) jensi sanksi dan lembaga yang berwenang menjatuhkan sanksi, dan tidak adanya otonomi Majelis Pengawas Notaris yang seharusnya mandiri dan imparsialitas dengan ikut campur tangannya pemerintah dalam eksekusi sanksi

---

The system of sanctions in the supervision of the implementation of the position of a notary as regulated in the Law on Notary Office and the behavior of notaries as regulated in the Notary Code of Ethics, is based on the types of sanctions which are the authority of the official authorized to impose sanctions and types of sanctions based on the types of violations of legal norms formulated in article -Article of the Law on the Position of Notary Public. Office sanctions that are cumulative in nature are not recognized in the Law on Notary Position. and the execution of the written reprimand sanction is carried out by the Head of the Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, while the execution of the type of sanction of temporary dismissal or dismissal is carried out with disrespect by the Minister. There are overlapping arrangements for the types of sanctions and the institution authorized to impose sanctions on violations of the Notary's Code of Ethics, namely the Notary's Honorary Council which has the authority to impose sanctions for violations of the notary's code of ethics which are internal (organizational) while the Notary Supervisory Council has the authority to impose occupational sanctions for violations of the Notary's Code of Ethics. This research was conducted to answer the problem of types of cumulative sanctions and condemnatory sanctions. By using the normative research method, through the normative regulation of the sanction system regulated in the Notary Office Law and its implementing regulations, it is found that there is overlapping of sanctions and institutions authorized to impose sanctions, and there is no autonomy of the Notary Supervisory Council which should be independent. and impartiality by interfering with the government in the execution of sanctions"